The Problem With Dungeons and Dragons

A long time ago, there was One.

It was first called Chainmail, then Dungeons and Dragons and it created an entire hobby, a genre of gaming in a form never seen before.

Soon after there were three others, Tunnels and Trolls, Rune Quest and Traveller. The last two are where I came in.

D&D has a certain style, but one that I did not personally like. In fairness it has carried the game through good times and bad to a point where it is still standing strong, even dominantly over seemingly countless competitors. My dislike has not stopped me from buying into all five editions and some mirror games like Pathfinder, but that is what being number one can do to a person (I currently have only selected bits left of these systems).

My problem with the game comes from the very limiting and specific core mechanics it uses. These are needed to control what would otherwise be totally open, ad hoc play action, which is the secret of table top RPG’s, constraining otherwise no-holds-barred play with regulated game mechanics, but that does not stop me from having an almost allergic reaction to them.

The four offenders are;

Levels. An artificial feeling mechanism for character reward and advancement.

Class. Another artificial control of character capability and in the field performance.

Magic. Vancian magic as it was called, just plain annoyed me and still does to this day.

Combat. Combat in D&D was abstract in the extreme and way too unrealistic.

There are other ways of controlling these four game elements and the methods tried are pretty varied, some are even brilliant. It is interesting to note that almost all other RPG’s developed since D&D have moved away from these basic concepts.

What is even harder to argue against though is the basic play paradigm of go down a hole, kill stuff, get treasure and cash that in for experience to become a better person. This is just fundamentally unrealistic and unlike any fantasy book I have read.

Many defend D&D’s choices simply on the basis of being “the first”, others just play the game and ignore the abstractness. This is the privilege allowed to the foundation stone of the medium, but the reality is, two of the genres earlier titles strayed from the path right from the get go.

Rune Quest, which became the corner stone for countless off-chute D100 games such as Call of Cthulhu, which is still the longest running “true form” RPG, staying much the same for 6 editions. RQ used a more logical and straight forward percentile system for it’s mechanics and this allowed the game to use single percentile advancement of individual character skills usually advanced through use under pressure. These skills were in turn not limited to a single class (upbringing, race, background and career usually, but this varies) , allowing the player to pursue any likely and logical road of development. You may go dungeoneering and get rich from it, but that is you get, a rich character in a make believe world.

A small part of the D100 inventory. Classic Fantasy on the right is Mythras crossed with D&D - old school.

A small part of the D100 inventory. Classic Fantasy on the right is Mythras crossed with D&D - old school.

Want a barbarian-rogue, foot-pad type who dabbles in a few minor spells, can whip up a herbal healing salve, use a boat, climb a mountain all while worshipping their chosen god(s)? No problem. D&D at the time made you choose a Thief or Cleric or Druid, with little workable cross-over. It is telling that 50 years later, most D100 games are using this same basic system, effectively unchanged (and it is surprisingly flexible** when change is made), where D&D has been fundamentally reinvented at least three times in this space and in countless minor ways by copies and off-chutes.

Combat in D100 games has a reputation for being brutal and short lived (i.e. realistic and scary and more fun for it). In D&D players have a tendency to feel like actions do not have consequences. In D100 games they surely do.

D&D uses a highly abstract system of “Hit Points” that have become a catch-all for defences and wound effects. Hit points in D&D raise with level, simulating the characters increased survivability, which has never been properly explained to my satisfaction, especially when Joe the fighter has more than an ancient Dragon. These hit points also tend to come back far too quickly and don’t even get me started on full magical healing and resurrection.

D100 games use either a similar hit point pool, but with very real critical hit effects, or actual body location hit points that are linked to the character’s physical characteristics (only) and seldom increase artificially (levels). You can lose a limb! As the character increases in skill and their opposition stiffens, they must get better at not being hit, not just increase their vague and “squishy” hit point pools.

Rune Quest and it’s successors also handled magic more logically. It often used a power point pool, much like magical endurance that allowed you to potentially cast the same spell over and over until your reserve was tapped, rather than limit the character to one-off spell use per day/fight or rest period. Alternately, the spell could be a skill learned like any other. Tunnels and Trolls, did the same thing, becoming D&D’s main competitor back in the early days.

Ironically, most people that dislike D100 systems say they are too “swingy”, referring to it’s linear dice curve, but D&D uses basically the same system with less granularity (5% jumps).

*

Second, and my true favourite, was first edition Traveller, not the actual original edition with varied weapon damage that a friend owned, but the one after (original 1.1). Coming at the same time I discovered the Stainless Steel Rat books, Star Wars movies and 2000 AD comics in the early 80’s, Traveller allowed me to play Sci Fi in a sandbox environment, using just three slim black books in a little black box (which also held d6 dice and pens etc). The systems were logical, realistic and sublimely succinct.

Again, Traveller managed to avoid the trap of levels, experience points and class, using skills alone. It used one of the best, and most lethal character generation systems ever devised (a mini game in it’s own right).

Combat in Traveller had the brilliant idea of applying wounds to the character’s physical characteristics, directly reducing a wounded person’s capabilities. So simple, so realistic.

Traveller also gave us (after T&T) a dice curve, using two six sided dice added together. This removed the linear chance spread that D100 and D20 D&D had, providing an average. This was more logically sound and predictable.

Mongoose, among others has carried Traveller through to now. The book on the left copies the look and feel of the original, jamming a fully workable game into this slim volume. The slicker book on the right has added colour and smoother mechanics, b…

Mongoose, among others has carried Traveller through to now. The book on the left copies the look and feel of the original, jamming a fully workable game into this slim volume. The slicker book on the right has added colour and smoother mechanics, but both still resemble the original, over forty years old now.

The biggest problem with all of the others is profile.

Most people have heard of D&D, using the term to describe all Role Playing like we use “Hoover” (or maybe Dyson now) for vacuum, but few can name many other table top RPG’s. Even “The Big Bang” and “Stranger Things” reference it directly (though the characters in TTB do not play it correctly-there are no it locations in D&D, for shame), ignoring the hundreds of other options in the hobby.

I have owned enough D&D, Pathfinder etc to sink a barge. I have given it a go, always coming back to different systems for the above reasons.

Until now.

I will explore my (mild) change of heart and the two systems that are at it’s core in the next posts.

*In early versions of D&D, you needed a representative from each major class for your party to survive, which I suppose was the point and promoted team work, but it felt very contrived. In later versions, many tasks and abilities went the way of the Dodo, but some did not. A Cleric that could only kill with non edged weapons, to avoid blood shed (but could still kill by pounding something to pulp with a mace!), Wizards could not use armour because of an ever changing excuse and only thieves were able to pick a lock? How about a big ass axe dude!

It is true that later versions softened these rigid limitations, but the fundamentals have stayed the same.

** It is entirely possible, with minimal effort to interchange core rules from D100 games from any period or genre. The Big Gold Book, a generic RPG tome of great standing, can be cherry picked for ideas for any D100 game from 1980 to now and any genre from fantasy to super heroes with little harm done. It is even possible to play around with the core rules to suit. My own system for rolling D100 is different to most, but works fine. It is not possible, for example, to use a monster stat sheet from any editions of D&D interchangeably.